Feedback Required A10.6 Experimental Feedback - CPU

Discussion in 'Experimental Features Discussion' started by Hummel-o-War, Oct 29, 2019.

  1. Hummel-o-War

    Hummel-o-War Administrator
    Staff Member Community Manager

    • Developer
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2015
    Messages:
    9,994
    Likes Received:
    14,810
    THIS thread is about actual EXP GAMEPLAY feedback (issues, numbers, usecases), NOT about discussions about the feature or how to change it! ;)

    BEFORE starting to give gameplay feedback and even BEFORE starting a game session,
    please READ through the main info thread
    (link below), as it has ALL the infos about how how the feature works, including frequently asked question and answers:
    For discussing the feature itself (complaints, questions, ideas, suggestions, concerns,..), please make use of the linked info thread, so we can concentrate on investigating the issues, values and usescases in this feedback thread!

    Thanks a lot! :)

    =============

    Known Issues:
    - ...
    - ...
     
    #1
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2019
  2. Hummel-o-War

    Hummel-o-War Administrator
    Staff Member Community Manager

    • Developer
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2015
    Messages:
    9,994
    Likes Received:
    14,810
    Please note:
    - When resuming a 10.5 savegame, CPU will be turned OFF by default.
    - We recommend to start a new savegame for EXP, also due to all the other feautes and POI changes (f.ex. The QuantumSTAR traders you can get the components for the CPU Extenders, will not be available in resumed 10.5 games!)
     
    #2
  3. Hummel-o-War

    Hummel-o-War Administrator
    Staff Member Community Manager

    • Developer
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2015
    Messages:
    9,994
    Likes Received:
    14,810
    PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR VESSELS AND BASES that do not work with CPU - after reworking!

    What means: when you have run out of possibilities or do not want to sacrifice your design or the purpose you build your ship or base further!

    1. Upload the .epb file (or as a .zip with a password and send us the PW via Forum-Conversation; start conversation and add Taelyn and me!)
    2. Upload a screenshot of the CPU contol panel view

    We want to get your blueprints for a closer analyzation and further CPU balancing!

    Thanks a lot in advance! :)

    PS: builds that have several dozen of RCS, thruster arrays and/or other devices "overstuffed" should be revisited at first with the original design and the task you made your build for and how good it works with SPECIALIZATION and CPU, in mind, BEFORE submitting to this thread!
     
    #3
    TK85 and ravien_ff like this.
  4. sillyrobot

    sillyrobot Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    391
    Likes Received:
    500
    The good news is my tiny level 10 starting miner fits tier-1 CPU usage. The bad news is it just fits; no real improvement/change is possible to account for the Mass/Volume system (which it needs to carry its mined cargo). It's 4,818 out of 5,000 right out of the box.

    Why has the ship allocated 7036 if the device total is 4818?

    CPU.jpg Stats.jpg
     

    Attached Files:

    #4
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2019
    nottrox ¯\ (ツ) /¯ likes this.
  5. Taelyn™

    Taelyn™ Administrator
    Staff Member

    • Developer
    • Administrator
    Joined:
    May 29, 2016
    Messages:
    3,246
    Likes Received:
    3,351
    Is bugged. The right window is missing information. The left Window is correct. Known to us
     
    #5
  6. sillyrobot

    sillyrobot Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    391
    Likes Received:
    500
    So in effect my tiny level 10 miner that can't actually handle volume and mass restrictions DOESN'T fit within tier-1 HV requirements? It needs to drop over 2,000 CPU points????
     
    #6
    nottrox ¯\ (ツ) /¯ likes this.
  7. Taelyn™

    Taelyn™ Administrator
    Staff Member

    • Developer
    • Administrator
    Joined:
    May 29, 2016
    Messages:
    3,246
    Likes Received:
    3,351
    Havent checked your BP yet, iam trying to eat dinner :p
    Will check it out :)
     
    #7
    Myrmidon likes this.
  8. Softwalker001

    Softwalker001 Commander

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2019
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    144
    Questions:
    Why do Container Extensions cost the same CPU as the controller????
    Why is a CV T2 RCS 1.25M CPU Why not just remove it???

    Will think of more after nap. Stayed up til it dropped to check my BP's They all survived.
    Though I don't see The point in CPU at all, it looks like I'm OK for now.
     
    #8
  9. Germanicus

    Germanicus Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2018
    Messages:
    3,038
    Likes Received:
    5,884
    You may consider to remove RCS at first step...than go through all stuff that isn't actual needed in the Role of a Miner, i.e., a constructor
     
    #9
  10. sillyrobot

    sillyrobot Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    391
    Likes Received:
    500
    So the CPU extenders actually consume CPU as well? I added a T2 extender to the miner craft I posted above, replacing a carbon composite filler block. The allocated CPU went up by 4. The T2 doesn't provide an additional 5,000 CPU, but nets in at 4,996!
     
    #10
    Kassonnade, krazzykid2006 and jmtc like this.
  11. sillyrobot

    sillyrobot Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    391
    Likes Received:
    500
    I could scrap the constructor and the fridge easily enough. They are straight conveniences. I was hoping once I had fully converted it to V/M that the constructor could start smelting as the first ore is harvested. If I assume early mining takes place on planets with a breathable atmosphere then I can dump the O2 systems as well though that makes the miner problematic with harder starts.

    None of the 3 RCS really can afford to be dropped. Miners really need to be able to tilt down to get started and 2 RCS makes it difficult to achieve and only saves 600 of the 2,000+ points necessary. Tilting up to get out of the hole when loaded with ore will be much harder. I haven't had an opportunity to test much with V/M active, but I actually expect the RCS count and rear thruster count will need to rise rather than drop to handle the mass load from the ore.
     
    #11
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2019
  12. Taelyn™

    Taelyn™ Administrator
    Staff Member

    • Developer
    • Administrator
    Joined:
    May 29, 2016
    Messages:
    3,246
    Likes Received:
    3,351
    They shouldnt take any point, might happen due to the fact how the blocks are calculated ill look at it

    EDIT: every block with more the 4 hit points will cost at least 1 CPU point
     
    #12
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2019
  13. sillyrobot

    sillyrobot Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    391
    Likes Received:
    500
    chickenhawk.jpg I started to look at a small live-in CV I use and started to laugh hysterically because of the 200K budget, it has spent 1.4M. The first 1.2M was a single RCS unit. Should the T2 RCS unit be valued at more than a million CPU?
     
    #13
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2019
  14. nottrox ¯\ (ツ) /¯

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2018
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    174
    Okay my other Design are definitly worth a rework for this before I make a feedbackpost based on them.

    But this one seems to be already a good example: Klumpen

    Klumpen has one single use. It's a mobile defense base. It doesn't have any boxes (despite ammo obviously), no lights, it's not even really agile. Plus it's kinda ugly. But it is (was) effective that why it even has a german name (Klumpen ~ lump):D
    It's only supposed use-case ist when you are raiding a PvP planet you unload a couple of these around your CV to protect your escape plan.
    Therefore:
    • it has nothing else but weapons (as described above)
    • is not agile but quick to load and unload
    • is cheap in production so you don't care when you have to leave some of them behind to make sure you escape with your prey.
      • (Yes i know it has shield but thats only because any structure is useless without shield nowadays. [Before there were shields a doubled Hull was already kinda good armored. That something i dislike btw as Shields suck energy like hell.])
    And now it has a CPU need of 64.636, even if i would remove all weapons it would be above the 40.000 limit.
    When you take a closer look you recognize that the RCS taking >23.000

    So i already hear someone saying: "Easy remove RCSs place your thruster of center, there you go."
    But the Thrusters are already all of center close to the corners and i could remove all RCS while still beeing over the CPU limit. :mad::confused::eek:o_O:(:(:(

    => CPU limit is too low. (And as stated in the discussion thread a max CPU limit is stupid / pointless.)

    Sorry if this reads in bad tone, I tried to give you a good example and i hope it helps to understand the problem PvP players like me do have with the CPU system in its current stage. Eventually i like the idea of more specialized ships with a smarter design.

    PS: In the CPU tab the Pentaxid tank is double counted.
     

    Attached Files:

    #14
    Andreykl and Kassonnade like this.
  15. nottrox ¯\ (ツ) /¯

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2018
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    174
    PSS: 39 RCS needing a CPU Power of more than 23k seems ridiculous. I understand it is high so the people built smarter designs but still.

    Also something i would like to be noted here: A Yaw turning acceleration 81°/s² may looks like a loot but doesn't feel quick/agile yet!
     
    #15
    Kassonnade likes this.
  16. jmtc

    jmtc Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2016
    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    601
    CPU extenders are using a ridiculous amount of fuel. It is possible to switch them off, but a ship sitting completely idle (engines off, weapons off, lights off) with a T3 CPU consumes ~2K PSU. This is untenable.
     
    #16
  17. Trig

    Trig Captain

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    642
    I have two HV miners that I had hoped would be within the Tier 1 CPU bracket (under 5,000), but both are over that. One was built yesterday, XM1051, the other, XM903, was built specifically to be under the original CPU max value (7,500) introduced in alpha 9. (both intended for use with mass/volume on).

    I feel that cargo extensions are eating up too much CPU. If cargo extensions are using 15 CPU each, they should at the very least actually store cargo mass (for weight distribution). I think 0 CPU for extensions, and maybe a little higher on the controller, would be more reasonable (extensions are just empty boxes). It's punishing enough having to build small/nimble mining HV's for mass/volume enabled games without taking CPU into consideration. Now with this CPU 'feature' it's becoming too frustrating.
    Statistics screen isn't very reliable for getting an idea for how nimble a craft is, since it appears that the rotational forces given by thrusters isn't shown there. (as an example a small hv with NO RCS and 0.00 values for roll, pitch, yaw, is far more nimble than a heavy tank with 100+ RCS and 80.0+ deg/sec^2 roll/pitch/yaw values). Also the stats screen values of an empty craft aren't very helpful, since you have to design with a full load of ore in mind (also frustrating since creative doesn't apply cargo mass to vessel stats).

    Also I feel that a constructor and detector is pretty much standard required equipment on a mining hv, the constructor GREATLY extends time that can be spent mining by refining the ore into much less volume and mass, allowing you to get much more mining done per trip. [since an entry level cpu-bound craft can't have a particularly large volume of storage, a constructor is needed to condense the ore to make the most of the storage it does have] The detector's CPU value is far more resonable so it's not as much of an issue (think it was just 50). 2000 CPU value is much too high on the HV constructor, especially considering you only have 5,000 to work with and keep it an entry level craft. 500, maybe 1000cpu value would be more manageable.

    The two example miners:
    4903 total CPU, but actually 7690 allocated, CPU Tier Statistcs isn't showing values for a lot of stuff (constructor and cargo extensions being big ones).
    This one has 4,008 SU storage (I still think this should be shown on stats page somewhere), allowing it to haul 2 stacks of any 2.0SU/unit ore. I used 2,000 promethium ore (+40tons) for max mass value to determine minimum amount of thrusters/hovers/rcs. It has 2 rcs, which I can't really remove since when it's loaded with ore it really needs those RCS to maintain the ability to turn (when empty it can get by without rcs using thruster's magical rotation forces). I can't really trim off much cpu without compromising it's intended purpose, I tried with only 4 hover engines, but then it pretty much just scraped the ground when fully loaded.
    Since it's even width (center of left/right mass is in-between two blocks) it'ts always going to be unbalanced when loaded with ore, since all cargo mass is stored in one block. I placed it as close to the center of lift (of the hover engines) as I could though (which meant making it nearly impossible to access the controller while on foot since it's on the bottom).

    20191029105508_1.jpg
    stats empty (so not really that useful for determining movement values):
    20191029105524_1.jpg
    stats full cargo +40 tons (actual movement values):
    20191029112632_1.jpg

    And the other (older) HV
    I haven't really done any testing or tweaking of this one since building it in 9.0.3, I think i could bring the CPU usage down a bit by taking 2, maybe 3 of the RCS out, but it would still be over 5000, thanks to the constructor and cargo extensions.
    It has about 5,000 SU storage, meaning it needs even more thrust/rcs force than the previous one to remain mobile while loaded (I didn't take it to survival to get a pic of stats screen while loaded though).
    This one's about as compact as I could build while still mass/volume compatible, so it's fairly disappointing that it's not CPU tier 1. Due to it's size it's quite nimble, seems to benefit a lot from thruster magic rcs, so the 4 RCS that are on it are probably overkill, but I don't want to remove them till I can test it with max cargo weight.
    This one was built for people that had CPU limit turned on in early alpha 9, so it's a bit outdated nowadays, might just scrap it.
    CPU:
    20191029133406_1.jpg
    Stats w/ no cargo:
    20191029133454_1.jpg

    Also, here's an older combat tank I had hoped to be able to someday overhaul, but looks like that's going to be impossible with CPU. It's taking over 170,000cpu as it is, while I could bring that down a lot by trimming out rcs, I don't think I could ever bring it below 50,000 and still remain resonably mobile, especially if it needed to haul an extra 100 tons cargo. It has 196 RCS and is very slow to rotate, taking about 6 seconds to do a 180 (in 10.6, so that is with the benefit of the thruster rotation force). It really needs T2 RCS for HV's.
    20191029115943_1.jpg
    20191029115341_1.jpg


    Also, it would be very nice if the CPU statistics page would show actual Efficiency value while in creative (and list all the things that cost CPU).
     

    Attached Files:

    #17
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2019
    nottrox ¯\ (ツ) /¯ likes this.
  18. sillyrobot

    sillyrobot Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    391
    Likes Received:
    500
    Things I learned today:

    Having a HV constructor means the craft is pretty much a minimum Tier-2. 2,000 CPU is 40% of the tier-1 budget. I suppose it might be possible to add a cockpit, fuel tank, generator, and ground repulsor and keep the craft under 5,000, but it will only be a mobile constructor. Constructing on the go, building ammo, or replacing damaged parts is not possible on a low tier craft that offers any role other than constructor. Probably the best bet is to keep a constructor in a cargo space and attach it when it is needed. Even high tier craft need to consider if a mounted constructor is worthwhile. A single constructor is still 5% of the total CPU budget of a tier-4 HV.

    Having a shield means a HV is tier-4. 15,000+ CPU points for a shield generator means the tier-3 budget of 20,000 CPU is almost consumed just by the shield. A moderately powerful combat HV is near or exceeding the tier-4 limit in a stripped down state.

    The new thrustor torque provides quite a bit of turn speed. Dropping one or more RCS is generally possible.

    Large HV are at a CPU disadvantage. Since any block with >4 hp cost some CPU, having a lot of blocks starts to dig into the CPU budget. Shape also can cost CPU, but I don't really understand the shape descriptions well enough to determine optimal shapes yet.
     
    #18
  19. RazzleWin

    RazzleWin Captain

    Joined:
    May 22, 2017
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    935
    I can't believe the cost in making the extenders! I hope the cost drops drastically or you come up with a way to make a lot more funds quicker. The cost alone is going to stop most people from trying to upgrade. And for those that don't like trading. You will be begging the rng to be your friend when you raid poi's.
    I could see this stopping people from making their own ships in game. Big bases might become a thing of the past. For me the grind just got larger and longer. There are no wholesale traders so I'm stuck selling 1 to 10 items at a time over how many days just to get the funds to make just one and for higher end ones you need 2 of the previous tier ones. :eek:
     
    #19
  20. Arrclyde

    Arrclyde Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2015
    Messages:
    1,707
    Likes Received:
    2,343
    That is silly. Smarter means thruster placement matters? That will only lead to less design variety. Because the most effective is even better if other placement are technically not effective.
    And whats up with those low cpu limits and high demands of things? Either have a shield or be able to move? Making a miner that is processing ore to ingots while mining is obviously OP and belongs to endgame cpu tier 4 stuff? What about turrets? Are CV artillery turrets allowed on planets now, or aren't they relevant anymore since making a CV that is able to move on a planet, carry cargo and docked vessels has exceeding the limit already, even without having a shield?
    Not teasing just really curious.
     
    #20

Share This Page